Acoustic Kitty was a CIA project launched by the Directorate of Science & Technology in the 1960s attempting to use cats in spy missions, intended to spy on the Kremlin and Soviet embassies, recording the links between the buildings in the area. A battery and a microphone were implanted into a cat and an antenna into its tail. This would allow the cats to innocuously record and transmit sound from its surroundings. Due to problems with distraction, the cat's sense of hunger had to be addressed in another operation.[1] Surgical and training expenses are thought to have amounted to over $20 million

trappedspirit:There's no space to launch a full rebuttal of the conspiracy theorists. (It took 1,632 pages for Vincent Bugliosi to do that in his 2007 book http://www.amazon.com/dp/0393045250/?tag=slatmaga-20" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(102, 0, 51); text-decoration: none; font-family: sl-ApresBold; font-size: 15px; line-height: 27px;">Reclaiming History.)

I collect conspiracy theories. They are like potato chips, addicting. My favorite is "The Gemstone File" it has at its center Aristotle Onassis who, under this theory, is both the most powerful man in the world and the most evil. This theory has it all Nazis, Howard Hughes, you name it. The essence of it all is that Onassis had JFK killed so that he could have Jackie to himself!

FreeBirdInTheHand:trappedspirit: There's no space to launch a full rebuttal of the conspiracy theorists. (It took 1,632 pages for Vincent Bugliosi to do that in his 2007 book http://www.amazon.com/dp/0393045250/?tag=slatmaga-20" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(102, 0, 51); text-decoration: none; font-family: sl-ApresBold; font-size: 15px; line-height: 27px;">Reclaiming History.)

1) Why were a handful of rebel fighters able to penetrate the defenses of a battle station that had the capability of destroying an entire planet and the defenses to ward off several fleets of battle ships?

Because the Empire didn't consider a single-man starfighter to be any sort of a threat. That is why they didn't have a tighter defense.Besides, the ability to destroy an entire planet was harnessed completely in it's superweapon, which would be useless against a single fighter.

2) Why did Grand Moff Tarkin refuse to deploy the station's large fleet of TIE Fighters until it was too late? Was he acting on orders from somebody to not shoot down the rebel attack force? If so, who, and why?

Who says they had they largest fleet of Tie Fighters? Even the 2nd Death Star didn't deploy any. All those fighters came from the fleet of Star Destroyers.In any event, Vader DID have the idea to go out and "destroy them ship to ship". Which they succeeded in doing with the exception of 2 XWings and 1 YWing. Tarkin also had no reason to believe that there was any sort of danger. He was expecting to fire one shot, and go for a light lunch.

3) Why was the rebel pilot who supposedly destroyed the Death Star reported to be on the Death Star days, maybe hours, prior to its destruction? Why was he allowed to escape, and why were several individuals dressed in Stormtrooper uniforms seen helping him?

It's pretty well known that they were allowed to escape so the Empire could track the escaping ship to the Rebel base.

4) Why has there not been an investigation into allegations that Darth Vader, the second-ranking member of the Imperial Government, is in fact the father of the pilot who allegedly destroyed the Death Star?

There are no such allegations. The Emperor was the only one around who was aware of Vader's true identity. Well, him, a couple of Jedi, one of which was dead, and Luk ...

Hey, we don't know any of that to be the case. I'm just asking questions here!

FlashHarry:i watched a nova episode on this a couple of days ago in which they used modern ballistic and other forensic science to study the "magic bullet" theory. and you know what? it turns out to be completely plausible.

As Stephen Hunter pointed out his novel "The Third Bullet", only those who are ignorant of guns and bullets and ballistics think the bullet that went through both Kennedy and Connelly was a "magic bullet". It did exactly as it was designed to do. It's the bullet that asploded Kennedy's head that is the puzzlement.

Tards will be Tards: a I guy work with whom in no longer care for because: when he told me "the plane that crashed into the pentegon was a conspiracy and there was no plane" , I reacted with "you don't beleive that do you ?" - he reacted with a verbal assault how i was a sheeple type and a bunch angry fuming - i suggested he watch the crash video again and wrote him off and a moron - because he is a farkin tard.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1QFfS-FlXA">http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=S1QFfS-FlXA

Why did the state dept give Oswald money before AND after he defected to USSR? (and why did Oswald visit a US military base in Japan during his "defection"?)

Why are Oswald's tax returns still classified?

Why did the president of the Texas Workforce Commission personally give Oswald the job at the building that just so happened to be conveniently overlooking a certain motorcade route a short while later?

Why were secret service personnel (guys who were supposed to be "human shields" on side of car) ordered to stand down at Love Field airport? (see video on youtube)

Why was a man known for mafia ties allowed into a secured area to kill Oswald?

There is mountains and MOUNTAINS of evidence pre Oliver Stone-derp that points to conspiracy. The staggering number of witnesses alone from that day. In front of the knoll,behind the knoll and across from the knoll. Multiple rail workers on the bridge a ways behind the knoll saw flashes and men behind the fence. ......etc.......etc........

The enormity of folks with ties to Oswald who died shortly after..........etc

Tards will be Tards: a I guy work with whom in no longer care for because: when he told me "the plane that crashed into the pentegon was a conspiracy and there was no plane" , I reacted with "you don't beleive that do you ?" - he reacted with a verbal assault how i was a sheeple type and a bunch angry fuming - i suggested he watch the crash video again and wrote him off and a moron - because he is a farkin tard.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1QFfS-FlXA">http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=S1QFfS-FlXA

1) Why were a handful of rebel fighters able to penetrate the defenses of a battle station that had the capability of destroying an entire planet and the defenses to ward off several fleets of battle ships?

Because the Empire didn't consider a single-man starfighter to be any sort of a threat. That is why they didn't have a tighter defense.Besides, the ability to destroy an entire planet was harnessed completely in it's superweapon, which would be useless against a single fighter.

2) Why did Grand Moff Tarkin refuse to deploy the station's large fleet of TIE Fighters until it was too late? Was he acting on orders from somebody to not shoot down the rebel attack force? If so, who, and why?

Who says they had they largest fleet of Tie Fighters? Even the 2nd Death Star didn't deploy any. All those fighters came from the fleet of Star Destroyers.In any event, Vader DID have the idea to go out and "destroy them ship to ship". Which they succeeded in doing with the exception of 2 XWings and 1 YWing. Tarkin also had no reason to believe that there was any sort of danger. He was expecting to fire one shot, and go for a light lunch.

3) Why was the rebel pilot who supposedly destroyed the Death Star reported to be on the Death Star days, maybe hours, prior to its destruction? Why was he allowed to escape, and why were several individuals dressed in Stormtrooper uniforms seen helping him?

It's pretty well known that they were allowed to escape so the Empire could track the escaping ship to the Rebel base.

4) Why has there not been an investigation into allegations that Darth Vader, the second-ranking member of the Imperial Government, is in fact the father of the pilot who allegedly destroyed the Death Star?

There are no such allegations. The Emperor was the only one around who was aware of Vader's true identity. Well, him, a couple of Jedi, one of which was dead, and Luk ...

The existence of a secret cabal means that there's some sort of order in the world; a catastrophic fluke suggests there's a vast crevice of chaos, the essence of dread.

The universe is an uncaring ocean of cold nothing...we are a soap bubble bouncing on a foam of indifference. Your conspiracy, your god, your religion...whatever you cling to that gives you hope of order and the possibility of control is a lie and a fraud.

HotIgneous Intruder:Also, hunks of flesh and bone don't get pushed by rifle bullets. They explode in random direction.

It's not really random. It depends on a lot of factors but a bullet hitting a container such as a head filled with mushy goop like a brain will create a tremendous shockwave of pressure. This pressure will find the weakest points to escape.

Take an empty soda can, fill it with water an then shoot it. Even my spring-cock air rifle causes both the entrance and exit hole of the can to stretch an rip wide open and the whole can ripples and bulges. A rifle like the one used to shoot Kennedy would tear it to shreds, pretty much like it did to his head.

trappedspirit:There's no space to launch a full rebuttal of the conspiracy theorists. (It took 1,632 pages for Vincent Bugliosi to do that in his 2007 book http://www.amazon.com/dp/0393045250/?tag=slatmaga-20" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(102, 0, 51); text-decoration: none; font-family: sl-ApresBold; font-size: 15px; line-height: 27px;">Reclaiming History.)

The person trying to disprove a conspiracy theory has to come up with an extraordinary amount of evidence to combat the almost limitless amount of bullshiat a conspiracy theorist can pull out if their ass.

Tards will be Tards: a I guy work with whom in no longer care for because: when he told me "the plane that crashed into the pentegon was a conspiracy and there was no plane" , I reacted with "you don't beleive that do you ?" - he reacted with a verbal assault how i was a sheeple type and a bunch angry fuming - i suggested he watch the crash video again and wrote him off and a moron - because he is a farkin tard.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1QFfS-FlXA">http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=S1QFfS-FlXA

Tards will be Tards: a I guy work with whom in no longer care for because: when he told me "the plane that crashed into the pentegon was a conspiracy and there was no plane" , I reacted with "you don't beleive that do you ?" - he reacted with a verbal assault how i was a sheeple type and a bunch angry fuming - i suggested he watch the crash video again and wrote him off and a moron - because he is a farkin tard.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1QFfS-FlXA">http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=S1QFfS-FlXA

I get a kick out of the people who think it can't be real because there is no recognizable airplane laying there in the rubble. They just have no concept the amount of force involved when a plane impacts a solo surface at 400 mph. Plenty of jetliner crashes left nothing but a smoking crater littered with small fragments of metal. At that speed the aircraft literally shatters.

James10952001:trappedspirit: There's no space to launch a full rebuttal of the conspiracy theorists. (It took 1,632 pages for Vincent Bugliosi to do that in his 2007 book http://www.amazon.com/dp/0393045250/?tag=slatmaga-20" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(102, 0, 51); text-decoration: none; font-family: sl-ApresBold; font-size: 15px; line-height: 27px;">Reclaiming History.)

The person trying to disprove a conspiracy theory has to come up with an extraordinary amount of evidence to combat the almost limitless amount of bullshiat a conspiracy theorist can pull out if their ass.

HotIgneous Intruder:Also, hunks of flesh and bone don't get pushed by rifle bullets. They explode in random direction.

No, that's really not true. They basically go out of the body along the path the bullet was traveling. There will be a little entry wound, about the size of the round. The exit wound will be much larger, because chunks of flesh and bone tear their way through without much regard to asthetics.

Also, whoever was talking about an explosion "contained in the skull" doesn't understand exit wounds, either. Bullets- especially from a high-powered rifle- don't just come to a screeching halt. They keep going, and take stuff with them.

Oh, let me get to the point. This is my arm, in 2007:

There's a little scar in the front. It's a little larger than 7.62 millimeters. There's a big scar in the back. That's where the bone chunks and a hell of a lot of my triceps escaped. And the impact sure as hell made me move- forward, towards the shooter. Thanks to the way I was walking at the time, it actually both moved me forward and spun me 90 degrees to the right.

Any other questions about being shot with a rifle? I'll be happy to answer.

craigdamage:Why did the state dept give Oswald money before AND after he defected to USSR? (and why did Oswald visit a US military base in Japan during his "defection"?)

Why are Oswald's tax returns still classified?

Why did the president of the Texas Workforce Commission personally give Oswald the job at the building that just so happened to be conveniently overlooking a certain motorcade route a short while later?

Why were secret service personnel (guys who were supposed to be "human shields" on side of car) ordered to stand down at Love Field airport? (see video on youtube)

Why was a man known for mafia ties allowed into a secured area to kill Oswald?

There is mountains and MOUNTAINS of evidence pre Oliver Stone-derp that points to conspiracy. The staggering number of witnesses alone from that day. In front of the knoll,behind the knoll and across from the knoll. Multiple rail workers on the bridge a ways behind the knoll saw flashes and men behind the fence. ......etc.......etc........

The enormity of folks with ties to Oswald who died shortly after..........etc

Gonz:HotIgneous Intruder: Also, hunks of flesh and bone don't get pushed by rifle bullets. They explode in random direction.

No, that's really not true. They basically go out of the body along the path the bullet was traveling. There will be a little entry wound, about the size of the round. The exit wound will be much larger, because chunks of flesh and bone tear their way through without much regard to asthetics.

Also, whoever was talking about an explosion "contained in the skull" doesn't understand exit wounds, either. Bullets- especially from a high-powered rifle- don't just come to a screeching halt. They keep going, and take stuff with them.

Oh, let me get to the point. This is my arm, in 2007:

[i47.photobucket.com image 432x500]

There's a little scar in the front. It's a little larger than 7.62 millimeters. There's a big scar in the back. That's where the bone chunks and a hell of a lot of my triceps escaped. And the impact sure as hell made me move- forward, towards the shooter. Thanks to the way I was walking at the time, it actually both moved me forward and spun me 90 degrees to the right.

Any other questions about being shot with a rifle? I'll be happy to answer.

Jebus, AK-47 I presume, Iraq or Afghanistan?

and yyour point is an excellent one, my first lesson in gun safety, at age 8 or so, was day taking a milk jug full of water and shooting it with his smallest gun, a .22 ruger pistol. the bullet made a tiny hole in the front o the jug and blew on wider than a football out the back of it. Dad then explained what hydrostatic shock was and all the ways human beings were similar to a milk jug full of water....made quite the impression

Gonz:HotIgneous Intruder: Also, hunks of flesh and bone don't get pushed by rifle bullets. They explode in random direction.

No, that's really not true. They basically go out of the body along the path the bullet was traveling. There will be a little entry wound, about the size of the round. The exit wound will be much larger, because chunks of flesh and bone tear their way through without much regard to asthetics.

Also, whoever was talking about an explosion "contained in the skull" doesn't understand exit wounds, either. Bullets- especially from a high-powered rifle- don't just come to a screeching halt. They keep going, and take stuff with them.

Oh, let me get to the point. This is my arm, in 2007:

[i47.photobucket.com image 432x500]

There's a little scar in the front. It's a little larger than 7.62 millimeters. There's a big scar in the back. That's where the bone chunks and a hell of a lot of my triceps escaped. And the impact sure as hell made me move- forward, towards the shooter. Thanks to the way I was walking at the time, it actually both moved me forward and spun me 90 degrees to the right.

Any other questions about being shot with a rifle? I'll be happy to answer.

Who shot you and why? Was it 7.62 x 51, 7.62 x 39?

How long did it take to recover? Any permanent damage to the use of your arm?

manimal2878:killdawabbitt: it would defy all laws of physics that an explosion contained entirely in your head would propel your meat-bag backwards, TOWARDS the bullet's origin.

No it wouldn't.

Based on the theory put forth in the article, that a nerve ending "exploded" in Kennedy's head, propelling the head backwards, even though there is a large hole in the back of Kennedy's head, yes it would. As stated, the head would be like a rocket. the nerve serves as the fuel that ignites and the force of the fuel burning out of the confined space would push forward, not backwards (based on Newtonian physics). I'm not stating this is proof that aliens killed Kennedy, I am saying what is proposed as fact here is insanely stupid.

How long did it take to recover? Any permanent damage to the use of your arm?

An Iraqi. Why? He probably felt like he was doing his patriotic duty defnding his homeland against an illegal occupation. That, or he was a member of the Mahdi Army. Or both. And, although I haven't seen the bullet fragment, I'm virtually certain it was 7.62 x 39. That part of Baghdad, nobody's rocking a Dragonuv.

There's permanent damage. The shot severed my radial nerve, and a graft didn't take. I've had a tendon transfer on my left wrist, and what used to make it move side to side (like waving) now makes it go up and down (like revving a motorcycle). I physically can't move it sideways. Also, I don't have much left in the way of a triceps muscle.

How long did it take to recover? Any permanent damage to the use of your arm?

An Iraqi. Why? He probably felt like he was doing his patriotic duty defnding his homeland against an illegal occupation. That, or he was a member of the Mahdi Army. Or both. And, although I haven't seen the bullet fragment, I'm virtually certain it was 7.62 x 39. That part of Baghdad, nobody's rocking a Dragonuv.

There's permanent damage. The shot severed my radial nerve, and a graft didn't take. I've had a tendon transfer on my left wrist, and what used to make it move side to side (like waving) now makes it go up and down (like revving a motorcycle). I physically can't move it sideways. Also, I don't have much left in the way of a triceps muscle.

and lemme guess, the fine folks at the VA classify that as a "10% disability" or similar BS?

Magorn:Facts do have the damnedest way of ruining a good conspiracy theory. If Kennedy assassination buffs wanted to do something actually useful for history, they'd stop asking WHO shot Kennedy, because that is known and incontrovertible. What they would do is ask WHY Oswald shot him and whether someone else put him up to the task and what that person's motivations were. While I do not believe Lee Harvey was a spontaneous lunatic with a gun, I do believe the truth if it were ever uncovered would depress a lot of people as they discovered the incredibly trivial reason a great US president died

MrKevvy:Well, even the U.S. government concluded that there was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination, specifically the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978.

So it's not like it's fringe, tinfoil-hat paranoid or even moronic, substandardmitter, to claim there was.

not exactly incontrovertible now is it? or did i miss your staggering argument against this? or was your argument just a bunch of snark with no substance?

Tards will be Tards: a I guy work with whom in no longer care for because: when he told me "the plane that crashed into the pentegon was a conspiracy and there was no plane" , I reacted with "you don't beleive that do you ?" - he reacted with a verbal assault how i was a sheeple type and a bunch angry fuming - i suggested he watch the crash video again and wrote him off and a moron - because he is a farkin tard.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1QFfS-FlXA">http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=S1QFfS-FlXA

I get a kick out of the people who think it can't be real because there is no recognizable airplane laying there in the rubble. They just have no concept the amount of force involved when a plane impacts a solo surface at 400 mph. Plenty of jetliner crashes left nothing but a smoking crater littered with small fragments of metal. At that speed the aircraft literally shatters.

i get a kick out of people that think the most secure building on earth only had 1 (and shiatty) camera that caught the event.

Tards will be Tards: a I guy work with whom in no longer care for because: when he told me "the plane that crashed into the pentegon was a conspiracy and there was no plane" , I reacted with "you don't beleive that do you ?" - he reacted with a verbal assault how i was a sheeple type and a bunch angry fuming - i suggested he watch the crash video again and wrote him off and a moron - because he is a farkin tard.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1QFfS-FlXA">http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=S1QFfS-FlXA

I get a kick out of the people who think it can't be real because there is no recognizable airplane laying there in the rubble. They just have no concept the amount of force involved when a plane impacts a solo surface at 400 mph. Plenty of jetliner crashes left nothing but a smoking crater littered with small fragments of metal. At that speed the aircraft literally shatters.

i get a kick out of people that think the most secure building on earth only had 1 (and shiatty) camera that caught the event.

... So? Given the fact that (and you're tacitly agreeing with this, remember) it's the Most secure building on earth, which is more likely:

1. The other cameras had information that was useless to the public in terms of this investigation and might have been of use to an enemy -- and given government paranoia, that could be rather broad in scope, not just terrorists2. No other cameras were allowed to record the building at an angle that would have proven useful to the investigation, due to same paranoia -- everything else was manually monitored, so nothing else was captured3. Other cameras were in a bad position and/or got obliterated in the crash with no useful data4. Other cameras magically contradict the (hundreds?) of eyewitness acounts that said they SAW A GODDAMN PLANE FLY INTO THE BUILDING and prove your magical belief that we need to get (who is it? Ron Paul? Kucinich? Pat Buchanan?) in power to solve the world's problems

Your nitpicking only makes you look more absurd, not less. And don't bullshiat me and say you just have questions.... You have an agenda.

Tards will be Tards: a I guy work with whom in no longer care for because: when he told me "the plane that crashed into the pentegon was a conspiracy and there was no plane" , I reacted with "you don't beleive that do you ?" - he reacted with a verbal assault how i was a sheeple type and a bunch angry fuming - i suggested he watch the crash video again and wrote him off and a moron - because he is a farkin tard.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1QFfS-FlXA">http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=S1QFfS-FlXA

I get a kick out of the people who think it can't be real because there is no recognizable airplane laying there in the rubble. They just have no concept the amount of force involved when a plane impacts a solo surface at 400 mph. Plenty of jetliner crashes left nothing but a smoking crater littered with small fragments of metal. At that speed the aircraft literally shatters.

i get a kick out of people that think the most secure building on earth only had 1 (and shiatty) camera that caught the event.

Why would you expect it to have cameras all over a solid concrete wall? It's not as if the plane flew in through the door. You put cameras at entrances to record people entering and exiting, there aren't a lot of people sneaking through the solid wall.

Given how quickly it all happened, I'm more surprised that it was captured on camera at all. Don't you think the conspiracists would have thought to shut that one off too?

Magorn:and lemme guess, the fine folks at the VA classify that as a "10% disability" or similar BS?

No. While I'm not going to cite a specific percentage (because I don't discuss any aspect of my personal compensation on a public forum), I will say that my disability was high enough to trigger a medical retirement, and that the VA rates me at a level I feel appropriate for my injuries.

Tards will be Tards: a I guy work with whom in no longer care for because: when he told me "the plane that crashed into the pentegon was a conspiracy and there was no plane" , I reacted with "you don't beleive that do you ?" - he reacted with a verbal assault how i was a sheeple type and a bunch angry fuming - i suggested he watch the crash video again and wrote him off and a moron - because he is a farkin tard.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1QFfS-FlXA">http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=S1QFfS-FlXA

I get a kick out of the people who think it can't be real because there is no recognizable airplane laying there in the rubble. They just have no concept the amount of force involved when a plane impacts a solo surface at 400 mph. Plenty of jetliner crashes left nothing but a smoking crater littered with small fragments of metal. At that speed the aircraft literally shatters.

i get a kick out of people that think the most secure building on earth only had 1 (and shiatty) camera that caught the event.

... So? Given the fact that (and you're tacitly agreeing with this, remember) it's the Most secure building on earth, which is more likely:

1. The other cameras had information that was useless to the public in terms of this investigation and might have been of use to an enemy -- and given government paranoia, that could be rather broad in scope, not just terrorists2. No other cameras were allowed to record the building at an angle that would have proven useful to the investigation, due to same paranoia -- everything else was manually monitored, so nothing else was captured3. Other cameras were in a bad position and/or got obliterated in the crash with no useful data -4. Other cameras magically contradict the (hundreds?) of eyewitness acounts that said they SAW A GODDAMN PLANE FLY INTO THE BUILDING and prove your magical belief that we need to get (who is it? Ron Paul? Kucinich? Pat Buchanan?) in power to s ...

nitpicking? did you hit your head?your points or argument only show you know very little about even the most rudimentary of video surveillance.

protip: surveillance cameras often overlap coverage, giving multiple angles of the same location. the data is not stored in the body of the camera, the video. the idea that only one camera caught anything useful is really ignoring common sense.

all this could of course be put to bed by simple releasing a conclusive pic or video, but they either choose not to or what they have contradicts the given explanation.

the only one with an agenda here is you and your willingness to refuse to be objective.

Tards will be Tards: a I guy work with whom in no longer care for because: when he told me "the plane that crashed into the pentegon was a conspiracy and there was no plane" , I reacted with "you don't beleive that do you ?" - he reacted with a verbal assault how i was a sheeple type and a bunch angry fuming - i suggested he watch the crash video again and wrote him off and a moron - because he is a farkin tard.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1QFfS-FlXA">http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=S1QFfS-FlXA

I get a kick out of the people who think it can't be real because there is no recognizable airplane laying there in the rubble. They just have no concept the amount of force involved when a plane impacts a solo surface at 400 mph. Plenty of jetliner crashes left nothing but a smoking crater littered with small fragments of metal. At that speed the aircraft literally shatters.

i get a kick out of people that think the most secure building on earth only had 1 (and shiatty) camera that caught the event.

... So? Given the fact that (and you're tacitly agreeing with this, remember) it's the Most secure building on earth, which is more likely:

1. The other cameras had information that was useless to the public in terms of this investigation and might have been of use to an enemy -- and given government paranoia, that could be rather broad in scope, not just terrorists2. No other cameras were allowed to record the building at an angle that would have proven useful to the investigation, due to same paranoia -- everything else was manually monitored, so nothing else was captured3. Other cameras were in a bad position and/or got obliterated in the crash with no useful data4. Other cameras magically contradict the (hundreds?) of eyewitness acounts that said they SAW A GODDAMN PLANE FLY INTO THE BUILDING and prove your magical belief that we need to get (who is it? Ron Paul? Kucinich? Pat Buchanan?) in power to s ...

You're probably in league with the Jersey Devil, the Skunk Ape, and the Mongolian Death Worm all acting under the control of the Lizard People. I'm on to you.

Tards will be Tards: a I guy work with whom in no longer care for because: when he told me "the plane that crashed into the pentegon was a conspiracy and there was no plane" , I reacted with "you don't beleive that do you ?" - he reacted with a verbal assault how i was a sheeple type and a bunch angry fuming - i suggested he watch the crash video again and wrote him off and a moron - because he is a farkin tard.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1QFfS-FlXA">http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=S1QFfS-FlXA

I get a kick out of the people who think it can't be real because there is no recognizable airplane laying there in the rubble. They just have no concept the amount of force involved when a plane impacts a solo surface at 400 mph. Plenty of jetliner crashes left nothing but a smoking crater littered with small fragments of metal. At that speed the aircraft literally shatters.

i get a kick out of people that think the most secure building on earth only had 1 (and shiatty) camera that caught the event.

... So? Given the fact that (and you're tacitly agreeing with this, remember) it's the Most secure building on earth, which is more likely:

1. The other cameras had information that was useless to the public in terms of this investigation and might have been of use to an enemy -- and given government paranoia, that could be rather broad in scope, not just terrorists2. No other cameras were allowed to record the building at an angle that would have proven useful to the investigation, due to same paranoia -- everything else was manually monitored, so nothing else was captured3. Other cameras were in a bad position and/or got obliterated in the crash with no useful data -4. Other cameras magically contradict the (hundreds?) of eyewitness acounts that said they SAW A GODDAMN PLANE FLY INTO THE BUILDING and prove your magical belief that we need to get (who is it? Ron Paul? Kucinich? Pat Buchanan?) in power to s ...

nitpicking? did you hit your head?your points or argument only show you know very little about even the most rudimentary of video surveillance.

protip: surveillance cameras often overlap coverage, giving multiple angles of the same location. the data is not stored in the body of the camera, the video. the idea that only one camera caught anything useful is really ignoring common sense.

all this could of course be put to bed by simple releasing a conclusive pic or video, but they either choose not to or what they have contradicts the given explanation.

the only one with an agenda here is you and your willingness to refuse to be objective.

Right. Just what do you consider to be a conclusive pic or video? In every instance I've dealt with, you find more evidence to appease the conspiracy nuts and said nuts raise the bar. You will never be satisfied do matter how much evidence is presented as long as it doesn't support what you have already decided happened, so why bother?

As someone else already said, pentagon security is mostly handled by human guards, this isn't a Hollywood movie and the exterior is not bristling with cameras guarding areas where there is no opening. Even if it was, they have no reason to release the footage in a futile attempt to appease a small fringe of people who will simply insist the footage was doctored or isn't the "real" footage, etc. Waste of time, you will never be convinced, ever, no matter what.

Magorn:What they would do is ask WHY Oswald shot him and whether someone else put him up to the task

My guesses: 1) Because Oswald wanted to impress Fidel Castro. 2) I think it is possible that someone (say, a barroom buddy) could have inspired Oswald by telling him that he would be a national hero in Cuba if he shot JFK (the would-be assassins of Harry Truman, Griselio Torresola and Oscar Collazo, are heroes among Puerto Rican nationalists. The attempt on Truman's life took place in 1950, 13 years before JFK's assassination).

Just as an example, the reason that Secret Service agents Clint Hill and Jack Ready were not riding on the back bumper of the President's car on November 22 was that JFK himself had given orders that they were not to do so, this according to Clint Hill himself.

The only people more annoying than conspiracy theorists are those smarmy, above-it-all geniuses who have decided that conspiracies simply do not ever exist in any form.

The Kennedy thing has been studied a LONG time by people who have devoted years to research and investigation. If you showed up late for the show and dismissed the whole thing as a garden variety chemtrail-esque conspiracy theory, cuz you watched a History Channel show, you just happen to be the actual moron in this scenario.

AteMyBrain:The only people more annoying than conspiracy theorists are those smarmy, above-it-all geniuses who have decided that conspiracies simply do not ever exist in any form.

The Kennedy thing has been studied a LONG time by people who have devoted years to research and investigation. If you showed up late for the show and dismissed the whole thing as a garden variety chemtrail-esque conspiracy theory, cuz you watched a History Channel show, you just happen to be the actual moron in this scenario.

Because everyone here has said that.

Just because people don't believe your particular pet conspiracy theory doesn't make you any less of a moron, even if you dismiss all other conspiracy theories out of hand. TFA and the thread are full of mentions of actual conspiracies, and why this probably isn't one.